March 13-16, 2013
Mar 13 06:04 Mesabi Daily News: Dayton tax increase didn't have a fighting chance Mar 13 11:59 In the spirit of bipartisanship Mar 15 05:51 Will Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget balance? Mar 15 06:38 Feinstein to Cruz: I'm not a sixth-grader Mar 15 23:16 Vikings sign ex-Packer WR Greg Jennings Mar 16 20:24 Dayton's Mulligan Budget shortchanges school districts Mar 16 23:04 Ted Cruz gives Di-Fi tutorial on Constitution
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mesabi Daily News: Dayton tax increase didn't have a fighting chance
This editorial in the Mesabi Daily News is spot on in its analysis of Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal:
It was unveiled at the end of January and found few, if any, friends. But it had a whole lot of enemies, especially in the business community, who pointed out quite accurately that the considerable new taxes would significantly increase the cost of doing business and therefore only be passed on to the regular Joes and Jills of Minnesota.
The governor could not make the case, from the outset, that his proposal to lower the overall sales tax and also corporate tax rates would, at the very least, cancel out the increases.
Simply put, Gov. Dayton's plan was doomed. First, it would've hurt all Minnesotans. Second, it would've just added costs to consumer prices at a time when disposable income isn't increasing. Third, Gov. Dayton got slammed by the business community for his anti-business tax policies. The business community's opposition to Gov. Dayton's tax policies, followed by Gov. Dayton's tepid support for his own plan, essentially put this proposal on life support.
I disagree with this to an extent:
We gave the governor a good mark for being bold in the proposal. But his grade for its execution was a remarkable 'F' - 'D-' at best. It was so poorly thought out that he couldn't rally DFL leaders behind it with even a hint of enthusiasm; nor could he have his own administration officials make it understandable to most Minnesotans.
I agree that Gov. Dayton's tax increases weren't well thought out. Subjecting kids who babysit or mow lawns to his sales tax was stupid and counterproductive. I disagree that Minnesotans didn't understand Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal. I think lots of people understood it. It's my opinion that Minnesotans rejected it because they simply didn't like Gov. Dayton's proposal.
Anyone paying attention knows that Gov. Dayton's sales tax increase proposal faced a fierce lobbying campaign from the business community. What went largely unnoticed is the fact that cities and counties didn't like the sales taxes against attorneys, engineers and other service providers. That was about to add hundreds of thousands of dollars to their cities' and counties' budgets annually.
That's an extensive, though not exhaustive, list of reasons why Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal didn't stand a fighting chance.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Sales Tax , Babysitters , Engineers , Attorneys , Counties , Chamber of Commerce , DFL
Posted Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:04 AM
Comment 1 by ERIC Z at 14-Mar-13 03:38 PM
I read online at Strib that Dayton's altered his proposal into something more palatable to most Minnesotans. Tax the RICH.
Good for Dayton. He allowed you Republicans to bleat away the alternatives, and now --- What, more whining?
In the spirit of bipartisanship
CNN is reporting that President Obama wants White House tours to start ASAP . He just hasn't figured out a way to make it happen yet:
Full public tours of the White House don't appear to be coming back any time soon, but President Obama says he wants to figure out a way certain school groups can still gain access to the famous address.
In an interview with ABC, Obama said the unpopular move to suspend the tours in the wake of automatic spending cuts "was not- a decision that went up to the White House." Still, Obama said he wants to find a way partial tours can resume.
"What I'm asking them is are there ways, for example, for us to accommodate school groups- you know, who may have traveled here with some bake sales," Obama said in the interview that aired Wednesday. "Can we make sure that- kids, potentially, can still come to tour?"
In the spirit of bipartisanship, one thing the First Family can do to get the tours going again is take fewer lavish vacations. The First Family has spent an average of $20,000,000 a year on vacations. For instance, when President Obama played golf with Tiger Woods, First Lady Michelle Obama vacationed in Colorado.
Where's the shared sacrifice, Mr. President? With people still struggling, President Obama should be setting an example by living a less lavish lifestyle. Americans don't begrudge him taking a vacation once a year. They've just got a problem with him and the First Family frequently taking lavish vacations.
If the First Family didn't set the record for taking the most vacations in this nation's history, there'd be tons of money in the Secret Service's budget to pay for a year's worth of White House tours.
Instead, the First Family has taken the attitude that they should be treated like royalty, that they should be able to frequently take lavish vacations to Aspen, Spain, Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii and the Orient. That's just a partial list of the First Family's frequent vacations.
The other thing that's bugging people, including some in the media, is how President Obama, the Leader of the Free World, portrays himself as an innocent bystander in this calamity :
Obama, speaking with ABC News, tried to distance himself from the decision, pinning it on the Secret Service, though other accounts have indicated both the Secret Service and White House had a role in the move.
That isn't presidential leadership. That's what political gamesmanship looks like. The Leader of the Free World wants us to think that he can change the course of human history but he can't influence the day-to-day goings on inside the West Wing? Does anyone think that the man with a reputation of being a control freak can't control his family's travels? Does anyone think he can't make decisions that would save enough money to have kept the White House tours going?
Families across the United States make budget decisions like this every day. The Leader of the Free World wants us to believe he isn't capable of doing what families routinely do?
Shame on President Obama for acting like he's impotent on this matter.
Here's the reality. President Obama is acting like he doesn't have a say in these matters because he's taking a major hit with John and Jane Q. Public. He's acted irresponsibly. He didn't put in place a plan to protect these tours, possibly because he thought he could do these things, then get the media to help him in blaming Republicans for his deliberate decisions.
Mr. President, it's time you stopped living like you were royalty. It's time you started doing the things that get government back running like it's supposed to run. It's pretty pathetic that you chose to live a lavish lifestyle rather than keep the People's House open for tours.
Tags: President Obama , Leader of the Free World , Tiger Woods , Aspen , FLOTUS , Secret Service , White House Tours , The People's House , Sequestration , Democrats
Posted Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:59 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Mar-13 01:03 PM
Gary:
One that maginifies how bad the White House situation is the Congress had a sequester cut just like the White House. Tours of the capital are still going on. The capital visitor center is still open.
Oh that's right they planned ahead and made it priority to keep that going!
So if the average person wants an example who is more qualified to make and run the federal budget I think we have 100% proof for them right there.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget balance?
Based on MMB's documentation , Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget runs an $8,000,000 surplus.
According to Pg. 2's statistics, Gov. Dayton's new tax increases will raise $1,830,000,000 in new revenue while increasing spending by $1,196,000,000. According to MMB's report, the Dayton/DFL budget will spend $37,946,000,000 while taking in $37,939,000,000, leaving a miniscule $8,000,000 surplus.
Running an $8,000,000 surplus on a $38,000,000,000 budget is cutting things so thin that it's likely Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget won't even balance. If there's a hiccup in Minnesota's budget, that $8,000,000 surplus will disappear quickly. That's irresponsible.
More importantly, there isn't a single reform in Gov. Dayton's budget. That means all the political payoffs to political allies are still in Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget. That means Gov. Dayton puts a higher priority on satisfying his political allies than he's putting on protecting Minnesota's taxpayers.
According to the last page of MMB's document, Minnesota a) still owes $1,252,000,000 on the school shift and b) won't repay a penny of that shift until the 2016-2017 biennium. That's what happens when the state runs an almost nonexistent $8,000,000 'surplus'. Remember that Republicans passed a bill in 2012 that would've paid off the entire school shift but Gov. Dayton vetoed the bill.
That's the height of irresponsibility by the DFL and Gov. Dayton. Notice, though, that school district administrators aren't saying a thing about Gov. Dayton's not paying off the school shift. They stayed silent when Gov. proposed a 50-50 school shift in 2011. They screamed like scalded dogs when Republicans proposed a 60-40 school shift.
That's proof that professional educators are partisan DFL hacks. In their minds, apparently, it's more important to defeat GOP legislators than it is to pay off the school shift they howled about.
Gov. Dayton's Mulligan Budget comes close to running a deficit. It raises taxes while refusing to pay off the school shift DFL legislators voted for in 2010. DFL leaders keep talking about Gov. Dayton's honest budget. That's BS. It's a highly irresponsible budget that relies on budget gimmicks like school shifts and major tax increases on job creators.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , School Shift , Tax The Rich , Deficit , DFL
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Mar-13 01:01 PM
Gary:
It's too bad since Mark is a trust baby that his millions in the bank account that the best way to keep your budget balanced is not to spend money you don't have.
Of course if you're lawmakers in Saint Paul who do zero work to earn it and feel great spending it that is the problem right there.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Feinstein to Cruz: I'm not a sixth-grader
The confrontation between Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cruz showed how little respect Sen. Feinstein has for the Bill of Rights. When she told Sen. Cruz that she " isn't a sixth-grader ", she guaranteed tons of publicity for her bill. Here's the key exchange between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein:
"Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?" Cruz said, speaking to Feinstein.
"Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?"
Pointing her finger and glaring at Cruz, Feinstein shot back.
"One, I'm not a sixth grader," Feinstein said. "Senator, I've been on this Committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in and I saw people shot with these weapons.
"I'm not a lawyer," she added, "but after 20 years, I've been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. ... So I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time."
"I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit - you used the word 'prohibit' - it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that other people use in close combat? I don't think so."
First, Sen. Feinstein apparently thinks that it's ok to infringe upon people's rights to defend themselves. Second, it's apparent that Sen. Feinstein thinks there's a secret exception to the Second Amendment, one where it's ok to prohibit the manufacture of certain types of weapons as long as a pompous senator "saw people shot with" the weapons she wants banned.
Using Sen. Feinstein's logic, she'd be fine with banning the manufacture of handguns, too. In fact, handguns kill more people than so-called assault weapons by a huge margin.
What's frightening is Sen. Feinstein's criteria for violating the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein thinks anything that looks frightening should be banned. Sen. Feinstein apparently didn't pay attention to the SCOTUS rulings on the DC and Chicago bans on handguns. The text of the Second Amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Passing laws that prohibit the manufacture of certain types of guns is infringing on the people's right to protect themselves.
What's most frightening isn't that Sen. Feinstein isn't smarter than a sixth grader. It's that she doesn't respect the clearly written text of the Bill of Rights.
Tags: Dianne Feinstein , Second Amendment , Assault Weapons Ban , Bill of Rights , Constitution , Chicago , Washington, DC , Handgun Ban , SCOTUS , Democrats , Ted Cruz , GOP
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 6:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Mar-13 11:58 AM
You want to buy a Tommie Gun? An RPG? What?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Mar-13 03:45 PM
Don't trot out that BS. SCOTUS has ruled that those weapons fall outside the scope of the Second Amemndment. There's a difference between weapons built exclusively for war and firearms built for sporting and/or personal protection uses.
Sen. Feinstein's bill would ban firearms used for personal protection. Shame on you for not seeing the difference.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 15-Mar-13 12:19 PM
No, I just want to be able to protect myself and my family with a gun that has the same capabilites as the ones the government has. There is no reason, outside of war, for the government to have fully automatic weapons or RPG's and there would never be a reason for said government to use those weapons against its own citizens since unpermitted law abiding citizens cannot own a fully automatic weapon.
Now if you want to talk about criminals you can but they don't follow the law so no law you create will stop them from using a gun in a crime.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 15-Mar-13 04:22 PM
I want to buy a bazooka.
And if there's any member of the United States Senate not named Reid who needs and deserves a lecture about the United States Constitution, it's Dianne Feinstein.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 15-Mar-13 06:28 PM
Based on Di's answer it sounds like she isn't even a first grader yet.
She certainly hasn't learned anything about the US constitution.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 16-Mar-13 12:58 PM
Eric:
Keep in mind the Newport, CT school was a gunfire zone, along with the Auroa, CO theater, and even Fort Hood was technically a gun free zone.
It seems like the easiest way to be safe is to be allowed to carry a gun if you have the proper permit just in case somebody shows up who wants to use a gun illegally.
In Minnesota for years the problem was that in some places you couldn't get the permit because the police even if you were law abidding had the right to say no.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Vikings sign ex-Packer WR Greg Jennings
The Minnesota Vikings made a great decision when they signed ex-Packer wide receiver Greg Jennings to a 5-year, $47.5 million contract Friday afternoon. Jennings' signing is a net plus for the Vikings. Earlier this week, the Vikings traded Percy Harvin to the Seattle Seahawks for a kings' ransom .
There's no questioning the fact that Harvin is a talented playmaker, a difference maker. That said, there's no disputing that he's a handful off the field.
In Greg Jennings, the Vikings get a veteran, a player known for his leadership in the locker room and the film room, a player known for his involvement in the community and for being a gifted receiver. This video interview with Vikings.com blogger Mike Wobschall says everything about Jennings' character and personality.
Towards the end of Jennings' interview with Wobschall, Jennings talked about playing with Adrian Peterson was the biggest attraction for him signing with the Vikings. It's pretty certain that Jennings won't see as many nickel and dime packages with Adrian in the backfield as he saw with Aaron Rodgers as QB.
Another thing that flashed through is that Jennings is excited to join the Vikings. He can't wait to start digging into the Vikings playbook, citing his desire to learn Bill Musgrave's offensive philosophy so he can play wherever he's needed. Whether it's lining up in the slot or outside the numbers, Jennings sounds like he'd like to line up wherever the biggest mismatch is.
When Harvin was traded, Adrian Peterson tweeted that he felt like he'd been kicked in the gut several times. I'm betting he's feeling much better tonight. He's got a gifted wide receiver on the outside who will take defenders out of the box to defend against Adrian's runs.
It's obvious that the Vikings hope Jennings' signing will help Christian Ponder's development. That said, one of the guys that will be helped by Jennings' signing is Pro Bowl MVP Kyle Rudolph. During the second half of the season, Rudolph was pretty much the only guy who got open for Ponder's passes.
Adding Greg Jennings through free agency and hopefully a wideout in the draft will take pressure off Rudolph, Ponder and Adrian Peterson.
This has been a productive week for the Vikings. They traded Percy Harvin for a first round pick and a seventh round pick in this April's draft and a third round pick in the 2014 draft. They signed Greg Jennings and QB Matt Cassel, then resigned OT Phil Loadholt and FB Jerome Felton to four- and three-year extensions respectively.
The Vikings now have the 23rd and 25th picks in the first round to go along with picks in each of the seven rounds, including 2 picks in the fourth and seventh rounds.
When the dust settles after the draft, I'd bet that the Vikings will have had the most productive offseason of all the teams. Yes, other teams will have made big splashes. The Dolphins fit into that category. Ditto with Seattle and Denver.
Quietly, though, the Vikings will have kept a talented offensive line together, kept Jerome Felton around as Adrian Peterson's lead blocker while likely adding some options for Christian Ponder. Finally, they'll likely address their needs in the front seven, too.
That's how smart GMs quietly build strong teams for years to come.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Rick Spielman , Greg Jennings , Adrian Peterson , Christian Ponder , Kyle Rudolph , Free Agency , Percy Harvin , NFL Draft , Seattle Seahawks , Denver Broncos , Miami Dolphins , Green Bay Packers
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 11:16 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Mar-13 12:54 PM
Gary:
It looks like they have done their work to get the offense set, but I think there is lots of work to get the defense fixed.
One thing you forgot to mention was that this team was just not making a couple of turnovers in the Green Bay game to sweeping the regular season against the Packers and winning the NFC North.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Mar-13 05:22 PM
Harvin was fine, an excellent kick returner, all that, until his season ending injury. Jennings has an injury history that might/might not prove problematic.
Either, healthy enough to suit and play, is worthwhile.
Depth at receiver is now the problem, as it was last year.
And middle linebacker. Jasper Brinkley was not resigned.
First round, it would be great if they got a run stopping nose tackle, something missing since Pat Williams left after elbow problems his last two seasons. I recall one play where he stood up a double team and there was no hole for the running back. They miss that.
Cornerback? Winfield gone, the draft, and after that look at who is still a free agent.
Do you try Joe Webb at receiver as was the initial plan, or jettison him and keep McLeod Bethel-Thompson?
If he has the hands and runs routes well, he has proven he can get yards after a catch, by getting yards from the backfield.
Is Marquis Gray good enough as a possession receiver to be a middle to late round pick? For Vikings, for anybody. I saw he ran a 4.7.
Who runs back kicks the way Harvin did?
Strib had Chris Carter saying the Bears gave up only two third round picks to get Brandon Marshall, so the Harvin deal looks good by comparison - but Seattle got the player that could put them over the hump. Probably good both ways since Seattle was willing to pay Percy's price.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-13 07:32 PM
Eric, it's important to remember that Jennings played after getting injured. He passed a physical before signing his contract. In my mind, that takes that issue off the table.
Second, the Vikings got a king's ransom for Percy. It's important to note that Jennings is a leader in the locker room & the film room. He's a charismatic figure who will push the Vikings other receivers to higher levels.
Percy was often described as mercurial temperamentally. Jennings is stability personified. To be fair, though, Percy is a bit more dynamic.
Here's my opinion on the NFL Draft: the Vikings will likely use one of their first round picks on a WR. That will likely be a choice between Cal's Keenan Allen, Tennessee's Justin Hunter or Clemson's DeAndre Hopkins. They'll likely take a defensive tackle with their other first round pick. That's most likely to be North Carolina's Sylvester Williams or Missouri's Sheldon Richardson.
Another option in the first round might be to take Notre Dame MLB Manti Te'o. Te'o took tons of grief for his 'girlfriend' controversy but there's no questioning his abilities on the football field.
It wouldn't be foolish for the Vikings to wait until the second round to restock their receivers. It's important to remember that two of the hottest receivers this offseason, Greg Jennings & Anquan Boldin, were second round picks. Rob Gronkowski and Kyle Rudolph were picked in the second round, too, so talented pass catchers are available beyond the first round.
Now that I think of it, the Giants' Victor Cruz was an undrafted free agent while the Saints' Marques Colston was a seventh round pick. There's no question there's value in late round picks.
Finally, Rick Spielman is showing his abilities as GM. I trust him with the draft. Just look at last year's draft, when he drafted 3 Pro Bowl-caliber players: OT Matt Kalil, S Harrison Smith in the first round & PK Blair Walsh in the sixth round.
Third round pick Josh Robinson, a CB from Central Florida, & fourth round pick Jarius Wright, a speedy WR from Arkansas, will either win starting jobs or get lots of playing time this season, too.
Dayton's Mulligan Budget shortchanges school districts
According to this propaganda piece , "Governor Dayton's budget makes major investments in education." I noted here that Gov. Dayton and the DFL doesn't repay the school shift passed during the Kelliher-Pogemiller majorities:
According to the last page of MMB's document, Minnesota a) still owes $1,252,000,000 on the school shift and b) won't repay a penny of that shift until the 2016-2017 biennium.
During the 2012 campaign, DFL candidates railed against the GOP for using gimmickry to balance the budget, frequently citing the school shift in their argument. The DFL 'leadership' praised Gov. Dayton's "honest budget" when he proposed his now-infamous Mulligan Budget .
Gov. Dayton's "honest budget" included tax increases on babysitters and kids who mowed lawns and shovelled snow . Presumably, Gov. Dayton thought that wasn't a gimmick.
Here's a question for the DFL praetorian guard media stiffs: how can Gov. Dayton make "major investments in education" when he's stiffing school districts out of $1,252,000,000 they've been owed since 2010? Here's another question Gov. Dayton hasn't answered: how can Gov. Dayton make "major investments in education" while stiffing school districts of over a billion dollars that the GOP wanted to repay?
Let's recall that the GOP wanted to pay off all of the school shifts in 2012 but Gov. Dayton vetoed the bill.
According to Dayton's latest propaganda sheet, he's 'investing' "$344 million for E-12 education." Considering the fact that he isn't repaying the school shift of $1,252,000,000, that means he's stiffing E-12 education out of $908,000,000 until the 2016-2017 biennium.
Simply put, Gov. Dayton is stiffing school districts while pretending he's investing educational excellence. How can he pretend he's the 'education governor' when the DFL wants to gut a bill he signed last year mandating teachers pass a basic skills test? In Sauk Rapids, 4 high school math teachers don't have a math degree. The students there are falling behind their grade level in math.
The EdMinn's DFL's solution to this crisis? Eliminate the basic skills test so all 'teachers' qualify.
That isn't a solution. That's a pathetic cave into EdMinn's demands that teachers be protected even though it means shortchanging the students. That isn't the path to a better Minnesota. It's the path to a dumbed down Minnesota.
It's time that the MNGOP realize that they'd better get engaged in the fight for educational excellence. By continuing to treat school board elections as nonpartisan elections, they're ceding control of the schools to the DFL and Education Minnesota. School board elections are the most partisan elections of them all. The DFL and their political allies in EdMinn fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.
Clearly, the DFL's anti-education, pro-union must stop ASAP. Keeping unqualified teachers in classrooms is disgusting and it's unacceptable. Stunningly, that's the DFL's agenda.
Tags: Mark Dayton , School Shift , Honest Budget , Education Minnesota , Basic Skills Test , John Ward , Mulligan Budget , School Districts , Special Interests , School Districts , Indoctrination , DFL
Posted Saturday, March 16, 2013 8:24 PM
No comments.
Ted Cruz gives Di-Fi tutorial on Constitution
This video shows how in the tank and/or stupid MSNBC is about the Constitution:
Here's what Andrea Mitchell said about the shootout at the I'm not a sixth grader corral:
I brought my handy pocket Constitution with me today just to make the point that this (the fight between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein) was not a fair fight because Ted Cruz thought that, somehow, he was going to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there.
Ms. Mitchell is a blowhard and a political hack. Notice that she didn't address the arguments Sen. Cruz made in belittling Sen. Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee. Here's that video:
Here's what Sen. Cruz said that ripped Sen. Feinstein's arguments to shreds:
My fourth and final point is that the Constitution should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws and it's up to the courts to determine constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body.
There has been a suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case, having been an active part in litigating and winning it 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court said in Heller -- it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissable. For example, it specifically identified the current ban on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as, in that case handguns were the principle issue being discussed, and the same arguments that are being suggested about why assault weapons could be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller why handguns could be banned.
The Supreme Court said "No, if they're in common use for self defense, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment." We have heard testimony that there are some 4,000,000 weapons that would be covered by this legislation. I would suggest that, by any measure, 4,000,000 weapons qualifies as common use. So, under the terms in Heller, they can not be constitutionally prohibited.
Mitchell's argument is based totally on the logic that Sen. Feinstein has been in DC a long time. She's the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, she wins the fight. Sen. Cruz's argument is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller, which dealt with Washington, DC's ban on handguns.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled DC's handgun ban unconstitutional because it infringes on people's right to defend themselves and their families. That's consistent with the plain language of the Second Amendment.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to argue against SCOTUS' ruling in Heller, she has to argue against the plain language of the Second Amendment. That's an uphill fight at best.
Sen. Feinstein's argument, if it can even be classified as such, isn't based on the Constitution. It's based on the time-tested liberal axiom of "Surely, we must do something." That axiom isn't rooted in thinking things through. It's based on emotion, which is basing policy on the shakiest of grounds.
Ms. Mitchell is right in the sense that this wasn't a fair fight. Sen. Feinstein was overmatched by the freshman Republican who knew substantially more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It's pretty embarrassing when a freshman schools a committee chair on the chair's supposed area of expertise. That's what happened, though. That's because Sen. Feinstein didn't think about the rights protected by the Constitution. Conversely, Sen. Cruz had an intimate and thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court's Heller ruling.
What's most delightful is that the best is yet to come. Sen. Feinstein's bill doesn't stand a fighting chance in the Senate. I'd bet that Republicans won't filibuster Sen. Feinstein's bill because they'll want vulnerable Democrats to vote on Sen. Feinstein's bill.
Tags: Dianne Feinstein , Judiciary Committee , Committee Chair , Gun Ban , Washington, DC , Heller , Democrats , Ted Cruz , Bill of Rights , Second Amendment , Constitution , GOP
Originally posted Saturday, March 16, 2013, revised 17-Mar 2:18 AM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 17-Mar-13 09:01 AM
This is the best post on this "debate" I've read, right on point.
